Is Change Coming for Immigration Reform?

Recent talk about "immigration reform" coming from Washington inspires some hope, some fear and lots of reminders about what I call "political-dualism": the ability of a president or political party to simultaneously communicate opposing policies while delivering either no new policies or exceptionally bad ones.

As the Obama administration prepares to take the reins of the massive and massively inefficient and broken immigration system, it is important to have clarity about the incontrovertible need to overcome the political dualism that created our immigration mess in the first place.

My first practical experience of lobbying and of political dualism came during the Clinton years. At that time, in the mid-'90s, I was head of Central American Resource Center ( CARECEN), then the country's largest immigrant rights organization. Like many immigrant rights activists today, my colleagues at CARECEN and around the country and I marched and protested and sued and lobbied to end the undocumented status of immigrants.

In one case, for example, we sought to secure legal status for the hundreds of thousands of Central American refugees denied political asylum and other forms of legalization by both the Reagan and Bush I administrations due to the Republican's politicization of the immigration process. In the end, our many efforts yielded only partial success in the form of what is known as Temporary Protective Status (TPS) granted by the first Bush administration.

Much like the rising tide of expectations today, the triumphal return of the Democrats to the White House in 1992 brought with it expectations -- and official promises -- of an immigration reform, one that would legalize Salvadorans living under TPS. TPS allows immigrants to work temporarily in the country, but does nothing to remove the specter of vulnerability before employers, landlords and others who exploit immigrants' temporary status for economic and personal gain. Images of my cousin, Maria, crying alone in her room because of oppressive hotel bosses and because of her inability to see her son, who she left and had not seen since he was 3 years old, remain with me as a reminder of the perils and pain of temporary and undocumented status.

I remember how Clinton administration officials with impressive credentials like Alex Aleinikoff and others charged with immigration matters, told us in un-Republican and friendly terms, that "We definitely want to resolve the TPS issue- but right now is not the right time." Eight years after the Clinton administration led the Democrats return to power, Maria and other immigrants with TPS saw no change in their legal status. And, now, nearly 20 years since TPS was first instituted, as I watch how Republican rejection and the Democrats' political dualism have left many TPS holders and more than 12 million other immigrants living under the tyranny of "temporary" and undocumented status, I find myself struggling with my own dualism: believing in the possibility of "real change" inspired by Obama's presidential campaign while also hearing distant echoes of the Democrats' immigration siren song.

Consider the conflicted and conflicting recent statements about immigration reform made by Congressional Democratic leaders. Asked last month what she thought about the possibility for immigration reform, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded, "Maybe there never is a path to citizenship if you came here illegally," adding "I would hope that there could be, but maybe there isn't." Asked the same question last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded in no uncertain terms, "We've got McCain and we've got a few others. I don't expect much of a fight at all." That such mixed messages would come from the Democrats is much more than another expression of the contradictory views often held by members of the same party. Viewed from the vantage point of the recent and not-so-recent and rather twisted history of non-reform has been immigration policy, these conflicting messages sent by the Democratic leadership should be viewed as a more recent variation on the theme of the political dualism that lead us nowhere.

Hearing recently that Obama had appointed Aleinikoff, the former Clinton operative, as one of the two people leading the immigration policy transition team did little to inspire hope among those of us with a political memory. But Obama's announcement that Stanford scholar, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, a young, outside-the-Beltway academic whom I've spoken with and who friends in the legal community consider fair, decent and smart, tilted my spirits towards believing change might be possible. But then news of Obama's likely appointment of Arizona Governor and former Clinton-U.S. Attorney appointee, Janet Napolitano, to lead the Department of Homeland Security only reinforced the belief that political dualism may define the Obama legacy on immigration; Napolitano has enthusiastically supported "emergency measures" like militarizing the border to "fight" the "threat" posed by immigrant gardeners, meatpackers and maids like my cousin, Maria; But she has also vetoed at least a few of the more than 75 anti-immigrant measures introduced in Arizona home to the infamous Sheriff, Joe Arpaio.

Arpaio, who is responsible for introducing highly controversial policies like deploying deputies in immigration sweeps of entire Latino neighborhoods, enjoyed the tacit political and financial support for these practices from Napolitano for several years. Napolitano did nothing to curtail the alarming number of deaths in Arpaio's immigrant jails and only decided to yank funding for his immigration program in the middle of the Democratic primary earlier this year.

If anything, the immigrant deaths, racial tensions, incessant raids and other indicators of the failure to improve immigration policy in Arizona provide immigrant advocates like Alexis Mazon of the Tucson-based Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, little inspiration and lots of concern. According to Mazon, Napolitano's record of previous support for Arpaio and for "some of the most dangerous immigration practices of any state in the country" give one no cause for joining the chorus of Democrats, media pundits and Beltway (as opposed to outside-the-Beltway groups like Mazon's) immigration groups gushing over Napolitano's "tough and smart" approach to immigration.

And as the Obama administration and the rest of us prepare for the possibility of a renewed discussion and debate around immigration reform, those of us outside the Beltway must put terminating political dualism alongside developing and advocating for a real reform agenda at the top of our strategies and actions.

Such a mobilizing approach revived what I remember was a moribund immigration debate of 2006, and nothing less is required now. In addition to mobilizing as they did in 2006, outside-the-Beltway advocates will also have to find new and creative ways to move the debate and discussion around immigration beyond the growing Washington consensus: combining the politically dualistic "tough and smart" policies that legalize immigrants while increasing the number and types of punitive policies that took up 700 of the 800 pages of the failed McCain-Kennedy "liberal" reform proposal.

Transcending the "tough and smart" political dualism of immigration reform means replacing the so-called "tradeoffs" of the McCain-Kennedy bill with "safe and sane" policies that combine legalization with fundamental and necessary changes to our broken immigration system.

The first consideration in any serious reform should be removing the immigration processing functions from the anti-terrorist bureaucracy of the Homeland Security Department and placing them in the Commerce or Justice Departments or some other less national security-focused part of government as has been the case throughout the history of immigration policy.

In addition to a less-punitive approach to legalization than the get tough approach of the McCain-Kennedy bill, out-of-the-Beltway advocates are also advocating for immigration reform policies that consider fair trade and economic development, human rights, U.S. foreign policy and other hemispheric issues that directly influence the flow of migration. Such a firm and steady, yet flexible and inclusive approach to immigration policy fits well Obama's promise of change while also freeing Maria and millions of undocumented immigrants from the perils and pain of political dualism.

Follow Roberto Lovato on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robvato

Comments

[elcid66]

All lazy people who do not want to go to school so they can get a better job and who seek the solution to their problems in duking it out for menial jobs with immigrants who do not even speak English should be deported. That would solve this country's economic problems a lot more quickly than kicking out hard working, family loving Christians who want to work hard to succeed!

[Henryk A. Kowalczyk - Huffpost Blogger]

I would be surprised if any change in immigration policy will happen, as our immigration debate is not about immigration at all,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/henryk-a-kowalczyk/the-immigration-debate-is_b_148289.html

[dhinds]

Roberto,

Your last paragraph reads:

"In addition to a less-punitive approach to legalization than the get tough approach of the McCain-Kennedy bill, out-of-the-Beltway advocates are also advocating for immigration reform policies that consider fair trade and economic development, human rights, U.S. foreign policy and other hemispheric issues that directly influence the flow of migration... "

Who, exactly is working on this? Are you referring only to activist groups, or legislators also?

We (Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural -CeDeCoR- Center for Community and Rural Development) have drafted a Food and Border Integrity Act (FOBIA) that unlike the unilateral initiatives proposed to date, is designed to be a bilateral solution to what is by nature, a bilateral and multifacted problem.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

[e-mail], inbox.comnbox.com

[wichitaks]

Eisenhower had it right about illegal immigration.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html
Every president from JFK thru GWBush (incl. McCain-Kennedy) had it wrong.
Illegal immigration exacerbates the conflict of "citizens’ rights & responsibilities" vs "human rights & dignity".
The USA judicial system seems to get the two concepts confused.
Responsible population growth in the USA is a key component of opportunity for all.
If religious communities, the ACLU & the US chamber of commerce want to help illegals; perhaps they should spend more time & effort pushing their human rights agendas in Mexico & further south of the border.
If religious communities, the ACLU & the US chamber of commerce want to help USA citizens: perhaps they should sue “employers of illegals” for violating the rights of USA citizens.

[nee]

All ILLEGAL ALIENS need to be deported and those who hire ILLEGALS should be heavily fined and jailed. We need to use the BILLIONS we spend on ILLEGALS on our own citizens.

[elcid66]

Illegals contribute billions to the social security system and will never see any benefits. The immigration "debate" is not about immigration. It is a referendum on whether we want Latinos here or not. Fortunately, racist whites, like most people commenting to Mr. Lovato's story, can no longer enforce their will by themselves. Their days are over. Please move back to Europe, or commit mass suicide. Thanks.

[randyjet]

I too supported asylum for the refugees from the US sponsored wars that created these people. The fact is that once the war in their home countries was over and done with, they are supposed to go back HOME. The right of asylum is seperate from that of the illegals. I even helped smuggle a freind of mine into the US after he was forced to flee Iran. Of course, he immediately turned himself in to the INS, and applied for asylum too. That is something that the new illegals cannot do now. The fact is that the wars have all wound down, and it is time for the refugees to pack up and go home now that it relatively peaceful there.

[randyjet]

As a long time liberal, I support the findings of Clinton's Immigration Reform Commission which was charied by the well known black liberal Barbara Jordan. I suggest that ALL go to the internet and READ her introductory remarks when she testified before Congress in submitting the bi-partisan report. I cannot match her in reasoning and eloquance on this subject. As she said, we should make sure that those who should get in, enter. Those who should NOT be here, LEAVE! No legalization, no increase in work visas, deportations ASAP, workplace enforcement etc.. THAT is a liberal agenda by the way. WE liberals are more concerned about AMERICANS who are at the bottom of the pile, than the welfare of corporations who love the illegals. It is the poor white, black, and brown American unskilled workers who get hurt the most from the massive flood of illegals. It is also why the Chamber of Commerce is so hot for immigration reform. Any liberal who finds themselves on the SAME side as the most reactionary, big business interests, should KNOW that they are on the WRONG side.

Those who doubt that illegals drop the wages of all, should remember what happened at the Swift plant after ICE raided the plant in CO. The plant raised wages by $3/hr and put out ads for workers. They had a line around the block of LEGAL Americans applying for those jobs.

[jeffrey678]

RIGHT ON !!!

[EspressoAtNoon]

No one is going to grant amnesty while our borders are wide open and the country is in a recession with millions of Americans heading to the unemployment lines.

That would be an economic nightmare - bringing in uneducated and unemployed people when our deficits are close to pushing us into bankruptcy, tax revenues are declining, jobs are disappearing, unemployment benefits are rising. We're in a freaking mess. WE DON'T NEED NEW WORKERS WILLING TO WORK FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR - WE NEED NEW DECENT PAYING JOBS FOR UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS.

[Rule Of Law]

"...to end the undocumented status of immigrants."

So what you're really talking about--again--is Illegal Immigration Reform, Robert--yes?

[randyjet]

We should end the undocumented status of drug dealers too. Simply let them have licenses as pharmacists, and then they can do their business legally. It is funny to call illegals undocumented immigrants. It is like calling drug dealers undocumented pharmacists. They BOTH willingly show contempt for our laws and our democratic RIGHT to decide who may come here and what is/is not illegal. It is time to call them what they are, anti-American, undemocratic, persons who are here ILLEGALLY. They are NOT the kind of people who we want here when they show such contempt for us and our laws and our rights.

Do you think that I have a RIGHT to go to Mexico and take a job there? I am a highly skilled pilot who is FAR better qualified than most pilots in that country Should I simply falsify my licenses and papers to get a job? Think that is OK too?

[FearlessFreep]

I support legalizing drugs. But they should be sold by the government.

[dilz0882]

We should be doing a few things differently...

1) Legalize marijuana. This will have a very potent effect on the Mexican/Central American drug trade. Weed flows like water through the streets here in Los Angeles and it would be a huge loss of a revenue stream and would eliminate a giant black market. That'll help alleviate the whole crime/gang/prison component of this in a significant way.

2) Deport all illegal immigrants in prison to their countries of origin and let them work it out somewhere where they have legal rights.

3) For supposedly such a proud, macho culture, these people are fleeing like cowards from their own country because things are going poorly. We should definitely be exploiting that as it's in our best interest to help inspire the Mexican people to take back their own nation for themselves instead of being parasites on ours.

[Rule Of Law]

Viva La Revolucion!

That would be one worth funding and arming.

[dilz0882]

Those of you who don't live in Los Angeles or San Diego county, or along the borders of Arizona and New Mexico don't understand the issue. Take the time to read the books and the statistics about the costs illegal immigration imposes on our social services and the disruptive forces of latin gangs and overcrowding in prisons. It's all real. It's not made-up right wing bluster. Northern Mexico, and in some places, the US border is a warzone right now due to drug cartel violence. Drug cartels are taking over entire regions of Mexico. Their government is a joke and they gleefully continue exporting the problem to the US.

Look, I'm white. I live in L.A.; I speak Spanish and I love mexican food, love salsa music and traveling around Latin America and Spain. I don't hate brown people or want them all to go away. My grandfather and his family immigrated here from Albania in the 20's and 30's and they didn't have any choice but to Americanize - and that means more than just learning English. It means obeying our laws and participating in our public culture. They didn't reject their heritage, they just accepted a second one. It can be done. It's not impossible. And if they're unwilling, we need to send a message that you're not welcome here.

[chickenhawkwarrior]

This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

t"he Democrats aren't going to do the reasonable thing and start talking about tearing down the wall on the border. "

I still do not understand why a wall on a sovereign border is such a big deal. Is is, after all a border - meaning citizens on each side are to get permission to cross, right? So what is the big deal if a wall is there?

Our economic system and infrastructure are stressed to the point of breaking right now, so I would say you would be surprised how many americans even on the left are in no mood to just open the borders and/or award citizenship to all illegal aliens.

Allowing a flood of uneducated people into this country w/out allowing the country time to assimilate them is not good for the country or the immigrants. It creates a permenent sub-class of cheap labor w/ no real hope of getting ahead... And it gives th host countries no incentive to fix their own problems.

[FearlessFreep]

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall"--Robert Frost

[chickenhawkwarrior]

How bout this one?

[chickenhawkwarrior]

t"he Democrats aren't going to do the reasonable thing and start talking about tearing down the wall on the border. "

I still do not understand why a wall on a sovereign border is such a big deal. Is is, after all a border - meaning citizens on each side are to get permission to cross, right? So what is the big deal if a wall is there?

Our economic system and infrastructure are stressed to the point of breaking right now, so I would say you would be surprised how many americans even on the left are in no mood to just open the borders and/or award citizenship to all illegal aliens.

Allowing a flood of uneducated people into this country w/out allowing the country time to assimilate them is not good for the country or the immigrants. It creates a permenent sub-class of cheap labor w/ no real hope of getting ahead... And it gives th host countries no incentive to fix their own problems.

[strick9]

I am an old Angelo that has seen the exploitation of my Latin American brothers for a lifetime. I have worked beside them and seen them used as an excuse for the low wages, lack of job security, and poor working conditions for all working class people. I have seen the division escalate to blame and hatred of all ethnic groups, black, Irish, native American, as well as Latino. We have destroyed their native economy with our subsidized trade policies, and then called them illegal when they migrate to do jobs that none of us are willing do. I have seen them terrorized by immigration officers or the DEA on a power trip. They work hard and ask for very little except to be treated as human.

[CenterDoug]

I agree with you strick9 and hope there is some gain in the offing for immigrants to this country for work, since there is none in their home countries. If we are to "fix" our immigration situation, we need to look at fixing the rape and plunder of Central and South America which has rendered so many south of the border countries hopelessly ruined economically. When 90% of a population earns $2 a day, of course the campesinos are going to move here if they can.